This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 26/1/63    most recent Final Manuscript Author Manuscript Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Copyright Permission Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Böttcher, R. T. Articles by Niehrs, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Böttcher, R. T. Articles by Niehrs, C. Pubmed/NCBI databases Substance via MeSH

Fibroblast Growth Factor Signaling during Early Vertebrate Development

Division of Molecular Embryology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany

Correspondence: Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Ralph T. Böttcher, Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, Kline Biology Tower-244, 266 Whitney Avenue, New Haven, Connecticut 06511. E-mail: ralph.boettcher{at}yale.edu

	Abstract

Top Abstract I. Introduction II. FGFs and FGF... III. FGFR Signal Transduction IV. The Biological Activities... V. Regulation of FGF... VI. Concluding Remarks References

 
Fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) have been implicated in diverse cellular processes including apoptosis, cell survival, chemotaxis, cell adhesion, migration, differentiation, and proliferation. This review presents our current understanding on the roles of FGF signaling, the pathways employed, and its regulation. We focus on FGF signaling during early embryonic processes in vertebrates, such as induction and patterning of the three germ layers as well as its function in the control of morphogenetic movements.

I. Introduction

II. FGFs and FGF Receptors (FGFRs)

III. FGFR Signal Transduction

A. Ras/MAPK pathway

B. PLC/Ca²⁺ pathway

C. PI3 kinase/Akt pathway

IV. The Biological Activities of FGFs

A. FGF signaling pathway in mesoderm formation and gastrulation movements

B. Chemotactic action of FGFs in morphogenetic movements

C. FGF signaling in neural induction and AP patterning

D. FGF signaling in endoderm formation

V. Regulation of FGF Signaling

A. Regulation by HSPGs

B. Transmembrane regulators

C. Intracellular regulators

VI. Concluding Remarks

	I. Introduction

Top Abstract I. Introduction II. FGFs and FGF... III. FGFR Signal Transduction IV. The Biological Activities... V. Regulation of FGF... VI. Concluding Remarks References

 
FIBROBLAST GROWTH FACTORS (FGFs) constitute a large family of polypeptide growth factors found in a variety of multicellular organisms, including invertebrates. The first member of this family, FGF2, was identified by its ability to stimulate proliferation of mouse 3T3 fibroblasts (1); however, the function of FGFs is not restricted to cell growth. Instead, FGFs are involved in diverse cellular processes including chemotaxis, cell migration, differentiation, cell survival, and apoptosis. The common feature of FGFs is that they are structurally related and generally signal through receptor tyrosine kinases. FGFs play an important role in embryonic development in invertebrates and vertebrates. This review focuses on the role of FGF signaling during early vertebrate development. Excellent reviews dealing with the role of FGFs in Drosophila (2, 3, 4), Caenorhabditis elegans (5, 6), vertebrate limb development (7, 8, 9), central nervous system development (10, 11), skeleton formation (12), and cancer (13, 14, 15) are available.

	II. FGFs and FGF Receptors (FGFRs)

Top Abstract I. Introduction II. FGFs and FGF... III. FGFR Signal Transduction IV. The Biological Activities... V. Regulation of FGF... VI. Concluding Remarks References

 
The human FGF protein family consists of 22 members that share a high affinity for heparin as well as a high-sequence homology within a central core domain of 120 amino acids (16), which interacts with the FGFR (17, 18, 19) (Fig. 1A). FGFs can be classified into subgroups according to structure, biochemical properties, and expression (for reviews see Refs.16 and 20). For example, members of the FGF8 subfamily (FGF8, FGF17, FGF18) share 70–80% amino acid sequence identity and similar receptor-binding properties and have overlapping expression patterns. FGFs appear to be diffusible (21), and they are able to act in a dose-dependent fashion, e.g. to induce different marker genes at different concentrations (22, 23). This raises the question of whether FGFs act physiologically as morphogens. Indeed, in neural progenitors, graded FGF signaling appears to be translated into a distinct motor neuron Hox pattern (24).

View larger version (42K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 1. Domain structure of generic FGF and FGFR proteins. A, Structure of a generic FGF protein containing a signal sequence and the conserved core region that contains receptor- and HSPG-binding sites. B, The main structural features of FGFRs including Ig domains, acidic box, heparin-binding domain, CAM-homology domain (CHD), transmembrane domain, and a split tyrosine kinase domain are illustrated with respective functions. CAM, Cell adhesion molecule; ECM, extracellular matrix; PKC, protein kinase C.

Alternative splicing of Fgfr transcripts generates a diversity of FGFR isoforms (25, 26). In vitro assays show that different isoforms have distinct FGF-binding specificities (27, 28). The tissue-specific alternative splicing encompassing the carboxy-terminal half of Ig domain III strongly affects ligand-receptor binding specificity (29, 30, 31). In vivo, FGFR-FGF complex assembly and signaling is further regulated by the spatial and temporal expression of endogenous HSPGs (32, 33). HSPGs are required to activate effectively the FGFR and determine the interaction between specific FGF-FGFR pairs (see Section V.A.).

	III. FGFR Signal Transduction

Top Abstract I. Introduction II. FGFs and FGF... III. FGFR Signal Transduction IV. The Biological Activities... V. Regulation of FGF... VI. Concluding Remarks References

 
FGFRs, like other receptor tyrosine kinases, transmit extracellular signals after ligand binding to various cytoplasmic signal transduction pathways through tyrosine phosphorylation. Binding of FGFs causes receptor dimerization and triggers tyrosine kinase activation leading to autophosphorylation of the intracellular domain (34). Tyrosine autophosphorylation controls the protein tyrosine kinase activity of the receptor but also serves as a mechanism for assembly and recruitment of signaling complexes (35). These phosphorylated tyrosines function as binding sites for Src homology 2 and phosphotyrosine binding domains of signaling proteins, resulting in their phosphorylation and activation (36, 37). A subset of Src homology 2-containing proteins such as Src-kinase and phospholipase C (PLC) possesses intrinsic catalytic activities, whereas others are adapter proteins. FGF signal transduction, as analyzed during early embryonic development, can proceed via three main pathways described below (Fig. 2).

View larger version (76K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 2. Intracellular signaling pathways activated through FGFRs. For simplicity, only those proteins are indicated that are discussed in the main text. Formation of a ternary FGF-heparin-FGFR complex leads to receptor autophosphorylation and activation of intracellular signaling cascades, including the Ras/MAPK pathway (shown in blue), PI3 kinase/Akt pathway (shown in green), and the PLC/Ca2+ pathway (shown in yellow). Proteins connected with two pathways are striped. Members of the FGF synexpression group are illustrated in red. The Ras/MAPK cascade is activated by binding of Grb2 to phosphorylated FRS2. The subsequent formation of a Grb2/SOS complex leads to the activation of Ras. Three routes by which FGFRs can activate PI3 kinase/Akt pathway are indicated. First, Gab1 can bind to FRS2 indirectly via Grb2, resulting in tyrosine phosphorylation and activation of the PI3-kinase/Akt pathway via p85 (41 201 ). Second, the PI3 kinase-regulatory subunit p85 can bind to a phosphorylated tyrosine residue of the FGFR, as shown in Xenopus cell extracts (202 ). Alternatively, activated Ras can induce membrane localization and activation of the p110 catalytic subunit of PI3 kinase (203 204 ). AA, Arachidonic acid; DAG, diacylglycerol; IP3, inositol-1,4,5-triphosphate.

B. PLC/Ca²⁺ pathway
The PLC/Ca²⁺ pathway involves binding of PLC to phosphorylated tyrosine 766 of FGFR1 (46, 47). Upon activation, PLC hydrolyzes phosphatidylinositol-4,5-diphosphate to form two second messengers, inositol-1,4,5-triphosphate and diacylglycerol. Diacylglycerol is an activator of protein kinase C, whereas inositol-1,4,5-triphosphate stimulates the release of intracellular Ca²⁺. This cascade has been implicated in the FGF2-stimulated neurite outgrowth (48, 49) and in the caudalization of neural tissue by FGFR4 in Xenopus (50).

C. PI3 kinase/Akt pathway
The PI3 kinase/Akt pathway can be activated by three mechanisms after FGFR activation (Fig. 2), and the phospholipids thereby generated regulate directly or indirectly the activity of target proteins such as Akt/PKB.

Among other processes, the PI3 kinase signaling branch is involved during Xenopus mesoderm induction acting in parallel to the Ras/MAPK pathway. Overexpression of a dominant negative form of the PI3 kinase-regulatory subunit p85 interferes with Xenopus mesoderm formation. Conversely, coexpression of activated forms of MAPK and PI3 kinase leads to synergistic mesoderm induction (51).

	IV. The Biological Activities of FGFs

Top Abstract I. Introduction II. FGFs and FGF... III. FGFR Signal Transduction IV. The Biological Activities... V. Regulation of FGF... VI. Concluding Remarks References

 
Early developmental processes during gastrulation stages of Xenopus, zebrafish, chicken, and mouse include mesoderm formation and gastrulation movements, neural induction and AP patterning, and endoderm formation (Fig. 3). FGF signaling plays important roles in early vertebrate development during these processes as discussed below and summarized in Table 1. Genes that function in FGF signaling and for which loss-of-function analysis revealed an early embryonic phenotype are summarized in Table 2.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   FIG. 3. Early developmental events during Xenopus, zebrafish, chick, and mouse gastrulation. A, In Xenopus, the three germ layers form along the animal-vegetal axis: the pigmented animal pole becomes ectoderm, and the yolk-rich vegetal pole becomes endoderm. Mesoderm is induced in an equatorial region (marginal zone) between the two other layers by signals emitted from the underlying prospective endoderm (black arrows). The dorsal mesoderm, the Spemann organizer, emits neural inducing signals (blue arrow). In the anamniotes, Xenopus and zebrafish (A and B), gastrulation is triggered by the involution of prospective mesendodermal cells starting at the organizer region of the embryos (red arrows). Convergence of cells toward the embryonic midline and anterior-posterior elongation of the body axis is achieved by cellular rearrangements (convergent extension). B, In zebrafish, the yolk syncitial layer (YSL) emits meso- and endoderm-inducing signals to the blastoderm (black arrows). Close to the margin, mesodermal and endodermal progenitors are interspersed, whereas further away from the margin only mesodermal cells are present. The zebrafish organizer, the shield, emits neural inducing signals acting within the plane of the epiblast (blue arrow). C, The chick embryo is a bilayered structure composed of the epiblast and the extraembryonic hypoblast. [Modified with permission from Elsevier from A. Locascio and M. A. Nieto: Curr Opin Genet Dev 11:464–469, 2001 (205 )]. Gastrulation starts with the formation of the primitive streak with Hensen’s node (the avian organizer, Hn) forming at its tip. During gastrulation, epiblast cells undergo epithelial to mesenchymal transition and ingress as individual cells through the primitive streak (red arrows). In the space between the epiblast and the hypoblast the migrating cells form axial and lateral mesoderm as well as definitive endoderm. Ectodermal cells become specified as either neural or epidermal cells before the onset of gastrulation. D, The mouse gastrula embryo has a cylindrical shape and consists of an outer and inner epidermal layer (for simplicity, only the inner layer is shown) [Adapted with permission from Elsevier from R. S. Beddington and J. C. Smith: Curr Opin Genet Dev 3:655–661,1993, (206 ).] As gastrulation starts, epiblast cells at the posterior side undergo an epithelial-mesenchymal transformation to generate mesoderm precursors and form the primitive streak. The streak elongates during gastrulation while mesodermal and endodermal progenitors start migrating through the primitive streak (red arrows).

The effect of FGFs on mesoderm formation was first demonstrated and most extensively studied in Xenopus (64). Since the first studies that discovered the mesoderm-inducing ability of FGFs (52, 65, 66), many components of the FGF signaling pathway were shown in Xenopus to be required for mesoderm development. These components include FGFRs (54, 67), HSPGs (68), adaptor proteins FRS2/SNT-1, Nck, and Grb2 (42, 43, 69), Src-kinase Laloo (70), PTPs (71, 72), Ras, Raf, MAPK kinase, ERK (73, 74, 75, 76), and the transcription factors AP1 and Ets2 (77, 78). Their inhibition blocks mesoderm formation and induces posterior and gastrulation defects. Conversely, in gain-of-function experiments they induce mesodermal markers and phenocopy FGF overexpression. The role of FGF signaling during mesoderm formation is that of a competence factor. It is required for cells to respond to TGF-ß-like mesoderm inducers, because activin-mediated mesoderm induction in Xenopus animal caps, for example, is blocked by a dominant negative FGFR1 (79, 80, 81). Similarly, the trunk-inducing activity of dorsal mesoderm, which depends on Nodal signaling, is inhibited by a dominant negative FGFR1 (82). The ability of FGFs to regulate Nodal signaling may be due to phosphorylation of Smad2 by MAPKs (83).

FGF signaling needs to continue during gastrulation for mesoderm maintenance as shown by transgenic Xenopus embryos overexpressing a dominant negative FGFR1 (84). One of the FGF mesodermal targets is the T box transcription factor brachyury (Xbra), required for posterior mesoderm and axis formations in mouse, zebrafish, and Xenopus (58, 85, 86, 87). Xbra and eFGF form an autoregulatory loop in which Xbra induces eFGF and vice versa (88, 89). eFGF is also required for XmyoD expression in the myogenic cell lineage of Xenopus. eFGF is a candidate factor mediating the community effect, whereby cells differentiate into muscle once a critical cell mass is reached, due to the accumulation of diffusible factors (90, 91).

In Xenopus embryos, FGF signaling has both direct and indirect roles on gastrulation movements. Nutt et al. (92) provided evidence for a direct role of FGF signaling in cell movements during convergence extension. They identified and characterized XSprouty2 as an intracellular antagonist of FGF-dependent calcium signaling. Overexpression of XSprouty2 inhibits convergent extension movements without affecting MAPK activity, mesoderm induction, and patterning. FGF signaling also affects gastrulation movements indirectly via regulation of Xbra induction and maintenance. Xbra acts as a switch promoting convergent extension and actively repressing cell migration by inhibiting adhesion of migrating cells to fibronectin (93, 94). Also, Xbra directly activates the expression of Xwnt11 and prickle (95, 96), which regulate convergent extension movements via the noncanonical Wnt pathway (95, 96, 97).

In zebrafish, as in Xenopus, FGF signaling acts as competence factor to control mesoderm induction by TGF-ßs, such as activin and Nodal (63, 98). Through the transcriptional regulation of three mesodermal T box transcription factors ntl (86), tbx6 (99), and spadetail (spt), a regulator of mesoderm formation in the trunk (100), FGF signaling regulates tail and trunk development in zebrafish (57, 62, 101, 102). As in Xenopus and mouse, the T box genes also serve as an important link between cell fate and morphogenesis. One important role of spt is the regulation of convergence movements of paraxial mesoderm during gastrulation (103) mediated by paraxial protocadherin (papc) (104). Additionally, FGFs may affect gastrulation movements via snail. Consistent with results in mouse (61), overexpression of eFGF causes abnormal widespread expression of snail1 throughout the hypoblast of the late zebrafish gastrula (57).

In addition to its effects on anterior-posterior (AP) patterning of the embryo and gastrulation movements, FGF signaling affects dorsoventral patterning of the early zebrafish embryo. Activation of the FGF8/FGFR1/Ras signaling pathway leads to the expansion of dorsolateral derivatives at the expense of ventral and posterior domains by an early inhibition of ventral bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) expression (105, 106, 107). It was therefore suggested that FGFs act in concert with secreted BMP antagonists (Spemann organizer factors Follistatin, Noggin, and Chordin) in dorsoventral patterning (105).

FGFR1 knockouts gave the first evidence that FGF signaling is also essential for proper gastrulation in the mouse (55, 56). Fgfr1^–/– mutant embryos die late in gastrulation, exhibiting defects in cell migration, cell fate specification, and patterning. Chimera analysis indicate that Fgfr1-deficient cells are impaired in epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) and, as a consequence, fail to cross the primitive streak (108). The mutant cells accumulate in the primitive streak and overexpress E-cadherin, and this expression is accompanied by the down-regulation of mSnail. mSnail is a key mediator of EMT in development and cancer by repressing E-cadherin (reviewed in Ref.109). Thus, Fgfr1^–/– cells may fail to migrate properly because they maintain high levels of E-cadherin in the streak as a result of mSnail down-regulation. The regulation of E-cadherin by FGFR1 via mSnail also provides a molecular link between FGF and Wnt signaling pathways because ectopic E-cadherin expression in Fgfr1^–/– embryos attenuates Wnt signaling by sequestering cytoplasmic ß-catenin to the plasma membrane (61).

Similar to Fgfr mutants, Fgf8^–/– embryos display severe gastrulation defects, lacking mesodermal and endodermal tissues. However, epiblast cells move into the streak and undergo EMT in the Fgf8^–/– embryos, but fail to move away from the streak (60). This indicates that FGF family members are involved in different stages of mesoderm formation from EMT to subsequent migration and that these two processes are independent.

B. Chemotactic action of FGFs in morphogenetic movements
The activity of FGF signaling during gastrulation movements in Xenopus, zebrafish, and mouse has been mostly linked to the regulation of target gene expression, which in turn regulates the migratory behavior of gastrulating cells. However, there is increasing evidence for a direct chemotactic response of migrating cells in response to FGFs both in vertebrates and invertebrates (3, 5). FGF2 and FGF8 function as potent chemoattractants during migration of mesencephalic neural crest cells (110), and FGF2 and FGF4 attract mesenchymal cells during limb bud development in the mouse (111, 112). FGF10, a key regulator of lung-branching morphogenesis, exerts a powerful chemoattractive effect to direct lung epithelial buds to their destinations during development (113). Recently, an elegant study by Yang et al. (114) showed that FGFs act as chemotactic signals to directly coordinate cell movements during gastrulation in the chick embryo. They analyzed the trajectories of cells emerging from different AP positions from the fully extended primitive streak and found that cells show different movement patterns depending on their position along the streak. The cells are guided by signals from the surrounding tissue, and beads soaked in FGFs alter their trajectories. FGF4 acts as a chemoattractant and FGF8b acts as a repellent for migrating streak cells, whereas FGF2 does not elicit a strong chemotactic response (114). In line with the expression of Fgf8 in the primitive streak and Fgf4 in Hensen’s node and forming head process, the movement away from the streak may be the result of a chemorepellent effect of FGF8, whereas the inward movement of cells results from attraction by FGF4 secreted by cells in the head process (114).

C. FGF signaling in neural induction and AP patterning
Neural induction is the process whereby naive ectodermal cells are instructed to adopt a neural fate. Several findings, mainly from experiments in Xenopus, led to the default model of neural induction (reviewed in Ref.115): BMP signals in the early embryo instruct ectoderm cells to form epidermis whereas ectodermal cells will adopt a neural fate (their default state) in the absence of cell-cell signaling. In this model, neural induction is mediated during gastrulation by diffusible BMP antagonists released by Spemann’s organizer. However, this model is certainly oversimplified, and increasing evidence suggests a pivotal role of FGF in neural induction and places the onset of neural induction before gastrulation. FGFs act as neural inducers in lower chordates such as ascidians (116) and planarians (117), indicating that this role is evolutionarily conserved.

The best case for FGFs as neural inducer is the chick embryo. Here, induction of neural tissue precedes the formation of the organizer (Hensen’s node) (118, 119). FGFs are sufficient to induce preneural markers (118, 120, 121, 122), and inhibition of FGF signaling using various inhibitors blocks neural induction by Hensen’s node (118). FGF signaling functions by repressing BMP expression because Fgf3 overexpression leads to a down-regulation of BMP mRNA and the subsequent induction of neural tissue. Conversely, when FGF signaling is inhibited, BMP mRNA expression is maintained and neural fate is blocked (119). A recent study by Sheng et al. (123) suggests a mechanism by which FGFs may block BMP signaling during neural induction in chick. FGFs induce the transcriptional activator Churchhill (ChCh), which is required for the expression of Sip1 (Smad-interacting protein 1) in the neural plate. Sip1 binds to and represses Smad1/5 transcriptional activation of target genes, thereby blocking BMP signaling. ChCh/Sip1 sensitizes cells to neural-inducing signals and represses mesodermal genes (123). However, FGFs promote neural fates also independent of BMP inhibition because beads soaked with the BMP antagonists Noggin or Chordin are insufficient for neural induction under most experimental conditions (119, 124).

In Xenopus, the role of FGF signaling in neural induction and patterning has been studied extensively. However, conflicting results were obtained concerning the role of FGFs in neural induction. Some reports showed that FGFs could directly induce neural tissue in animal cap explants. However, in most cases a sensitized background was used in which BMP signaling was partially attenuated (23, 125, 126). In addition, inhibition of FGF signaling by dominant negative FGFR1 blocks neural induction by Noggin or Spemann organizer (127), Chordin (128), or notochord tissue (129). On the other hand, several studies using dominant negative FGFR1 obtained contradictory results showing that neural tissue forms apparently even when FGF signaling is inhibited (84, 126, 129, 130, 131). However, these experiments were carried out using the dominant negative form of the FGFR1, but FGF signaling required for anterior neural induction may be mediated through FGFRs other than FGFR1. Indeed, Hongo et al. (132) showed that anterior neural development is more sensitive to inhibition of FGFR4a than to FGFR1. Likewise, FGF8 stimulates neuronal differentiation preferentially through FGFR4a (133), and FGF signaling through FGFR1, but not FGFR4a, is required for neural crest formation (134). The two receptors preferentially activate different downstream pathways, suggesting that they may have distinct functions during development. FGFR4a can signal through PLC in neural induction (50) whereas FGFR1 preferentially activates the Ras-MAPK pathway, involved in posteriorization of already neuralized ectoderm (50, 126).

In addition to their early effects in neural induction, FGFs are potent posteriorizing agents during AP patterning of the neural plate (135). They are able to convert anterior neural tissue to more posterior neural cell types (50, 125, 126, 131, 136). For example, when FGF-soaked beads are placed in the anterior neural plate, they inhibit anterior neural marker expression (137, 138), and this may involve a cross-talk with the Wnt pathway (130, 139, 140, 141). Similarly, overexpression of FGF3 in zebrafish expands posterior neural tissue (142). Conversely, dominant negative FGFR1 or dominant negative Ras block induction of posterior neural markers (126, 131).

Patterning of neuroectoderm and mesoderm is linked to the patterned expression of Hox genes along the AP axis of the embryo (143). There is strong evidence from studies in mouse, chick, and Xenopus that FGF signaling regulates early AP patterning via the regulation of Hox genes. Ectopic application or overexpression of FGFs results in the up-regulation of posterior members of the Hox gene family (137, 144, 145, 146, 147). Conversely, overexpression of dominant negative FGFR1 represses posterior Hox gene expression (137, 148). Caudals are immediate-early response genes to FGF signaling and mediate Hox regulation by FGFs (137, 147, 149, 150). A recent study demonstrates that graded FGF signaling is translated into a distinct motor neuron Hox pattern (24).

An alternative mode of action for FGFs as posteriorizing factor was described for chick neural tube in which they mediate the maintenance of neural stem cells at Hensen’s node. Therefore, FGFs might act to prolong the time window during which cells are exposed to other posteriorizing factors, such as retinoic acid or Wnts, thereby promoting the continuous development of the posterior nervous system (151).

D. FGF signaling in endoderm formation
Although endodermal organ development is widely studied, little is known about how endoderm is initially formed and regionally specified in vertebrates. Accumulating data, especially in the mouse, point toward a function of FGF signaling in early endoderm maintenance and patterning. In chimeric embryos, Fgfr1^–/– cells are unable to populate endodermal derivatives (61, 108). Similarly, embryoid bodies derived from Fgfr1^–/– embryonic stem cells lack visceral endoderm. This is associated with a lowered expression of the endodermal marker -fetoprotein. However, some endoderm is eventually formed, as indicated by the unchanged expression of GATA4 (152). Endoderm deficiency was also obtained in embryoid bodies overexpressing a dominant negative FGFR2, where inhibition of three endodermal markers (-fetoprotein, HNF4, and Evx1) was observed (153). Fgf8^–/– embryos develop no embryonic mesoderm- and endoderm-derived tissue, and this is accompanied by inhibition of Fgf4 expression (60). Fgf4^–/– embryos die shortly after implantation and fail to make detectable mesoderm and endoderm (154), a phenotype similar to the targeted disruption of Fgfr2 (155, 156). A study by Wells and Melton (157) further supports the role of FGF4 in the specification of primitive endoderm in the mouse because recombinant FGF4 affects the patterning in isolated endoderm in a concentration-dependent manner. Other analyzed FGFs (aFGF, FGF2, 5, 8b) or other growth factors (TGF, TGFß, epidermal growth factor, IGF) had no activity in this assay (157). In conclusion, FGF signaling appears not to be required for induction but rather for the maintenance and patterning of endoderm, because some endodermal markers continue to be expressed even when FGF signaling is inhibited.

An important caveat in analyzing endoderm development is the potent influence of mesoderm on its differentiation and patterning (158, 159). Thus, factors may regulate endoderm via an effect on mesoderm unless this is rigorously controlled. In Xenopus this can be achieved by explanting vegetal caps, which are devoid of mesoderm and only develop into endoderm. FGF signaling-dependent MAPK activity is detectable in the prospective endodermal cells of the Xenopus blastula embryo (160). However, studies with such vegetal caps gave conflicting results regarding the role of FGF signaling in endoderm. Expression of the dorsal endodermal marker Xlhbox8 and the pan-endodermal marker Mix1 can be blocked by injection of dominant negative FGFR1 (160, 161). In contrast, other studies failed to observe the requirement of FGF signaling for Xlhbox8 expression but rather report an inhibition of Xlhbox8 after FGF treatment (162, 163). Modulation of FGF signaling does not affect the expression of pan-endodermal markers in the majority of vegetal explants experiments, and FGF does not induce a number of endodermal genes in animal caps (128, 164). It is therefore suggested that FGF signaling is not essential for endoderm formation. However, defined levels of FGF activity may be required for endodermal patterning.

In summary, FGF signaling plays simultaneous roles during gastrulation to induce different cell fates and morphogenetic movements, raising the question of how the specific response to FGFs in different germ layers is mediated. On the one hand, different FGFs may mediate neural or mesodermal induction (e.g. Ref.133). On the other hand, two recent papers show that in the ascidian Ciona and in chick the competence of cells to respond to FGF signals with neural induction is regulated by the neural-specific transcription factors GATA and ChCh, respectively (123, 165). Thus, in addition to qualitative differences among different FGF family members, the spatial and temporal restricted expression of cofactors provides another mechanism to separate the different functions of FGF during gastrulation.

	V. Regulation of FGF Signaling

Top Abstract I. Introduction II. FGFs and FGF... III. FGFR Signal Transduction IV. The Biological Activities... V. Regulation of FGF... VI. Concluding Remarks References

 
Developmental signaling that involves intercellular communication and regulates cell fate must be precisely regulated regarding timing, duration, and spread of such a signal. Precision and robustness of these features can be achieved by both positive and negative feedback loops (reviewed in Ref.166). Negative feedback stabilizes a system when confronted with environmental fluctuations (167). Furthermore, it can limit the absolute level or duration of a signal and can lead to signal oscillations (168). FGF signaling is regulated at many levels in the extracellular space and within the cell. Many of these regulatory mechanisms are not specific for FGF signaling but rather activate or attenuate RTK signaling in general (169). Yet, a growing number of proteins were identified in recent years that specifically regulate the activity of FGFs or signaling pathways activated through FGFRs. Interestingly, many of these regulatory components are themselves regulated by FGF signaling and are tightly coexpressed with Fgfs, forming a synexpression group (107, 168, 170). Synexpression groups are genetic modules in which expression of different genes are closely correlated and whose members function in a common pathway (171). Most of the FGF synexpression group members inhibit FGF signaling and thereby establish negative feedback loops.

A. Regulation by HSPGs
An important feature of FGF biology involves the extracellular interaction between FGF and heparin or HSPG (32). HSPGs are sulfated glycosaminoglycans covalently bound to a core protein. Enormous structural heterogeneity can be generated through specific heparin sulfate chain modifications during their biosynthesis, as well as from the diverse nature of their core proteins (reviewed in Ref.172). HSPGs are required for FGFs to effectively activate the FGFR and determine interaction between individual FGF family members with certain FGFRs (173, 174). The crystal structure of ternary FGF-heparin-FGFR complexes have been determined; heparin bridges two FGFRs to form FGFR dimers, which bind two FGFs (175). In an elegant study, a ligand and carbohydrate engagement assay was employed to examine the spatio-temporal changes in HS to promote ternary complex formation with FGFs and FGFRs. These changes depend on glycosyltransferases and sugar sulfotransferases. The analysis reveals that synthesis of HS domains is tightly regulated throughout development, and different FGF-FGFR pairs have unique HS-binding requirements (33). Other than promoting FGF binding to its receptors, HSPGs protect the FGFs from thermal denaturation and proteolysis (176). In addition, these interactions limit FGF diffusion and release into interstitial spaces, thereby regulating FGF activity within a tissue (177, 178). The importance of HSPGs and enzymes involved in HS biosynthesis for FGF signaling during development has been demonstrated in vivo in a number of studies (68, 179, 180, 181). For example, mice mutated in UDP-glucose dehydrogenase (Ugdh), one of the key enzymes for HS biosynthesis, fail to gastrulate properly and show defects of mesoderm and endoderm migration similar to FGF pathway mutants (181). In the Ugdh mutant embryos, FGF signaling is specifically blocked whereas signaling by Wnt3 and Nodal appears unaffected. Ugdh mutant Drosophila embryos also have phenotypes similar to FGFR mutants (180), indicating an evolutionary conserved requirement for HSPGs in FGF signaling.

The nature of the proteoglycan core protein essential for FGF signal transduction has not been identified because single knock-out mice mutant for diverse core proteins (including Syndecan1, -3, and -4; Glypican2 and -3; and Perlecan) survive past gastrulation.

B. Transmembrane regulators
An emerging theme is the regulation of FGF signaling by transmembrane modulators. The transmembrane protein Sef is a member of the FGF synexpression group in zebrafish and mouse, expressed in the characteristic pattern of FGF8 and regulated by FGF signaling (107, 170, 182). Overexpression studies in zebrafish embryos show that Sef inhibits FGF signaling via interaction with FGFR1 and -4a (170) and that it functions at the level or downstream of MAPK kinase (107). Interfering with Sef function by antisense morpholino oligonucleotide (MO) injection induces phenotypic changes reminiscent of embryos dorsalized by ectopic expression of Fgf8 (107, 170). The molecular mechanism of Sef action is controversial. Sef may inhibit FGF signaling at the level of FGFR (183, 213). Overexpression of mouse Sef inhibits tyrosine-phosphorylation of FGFR1 and FRS2 and inhibits activation of the MAP kinase and Akt pathway, possibly due to reduced recruitment of Grb2 to FRS2 (183). In contrast, other reports argue Sef acts downstream of or at the level of MEK (107, 214, 215, 216). Torii et al. (216) showed that hSef acts to restrict ERK activity to the cytoplasm. hSef binds to activated forms of MEK and inhibits the dissociation of the MEK-ERK complexes. Thereby, nuclear translocation of ERK is blocked without inhibiting its activity in the cytoplasm (216).

In Xenopus, XFLRT3, a member of a family of leucine-rich repeat transmembrane proteins, is another component of the FGF signaling pathway (184). Its expression is very similar to that of the FGF8 synexpression group, and it is regulated by FGFs. When overexpressed, FLRT3 phenocopies FGF signaling and activates the MAPK pathway. Inhibition of XFLRTs by MO injection interferes with FGF signaling. XFLRT3 binds to FGFRs and modulates FGFR signaling by an unknown mechanism. In cell culture, FLRT3 promotes neurite outgrowth of primary cerebella granule neurons (217). Since FGF promotes axon outgrowth (218, 219, 220), it is possible that potentiation of FGF signaling by FLRT3 underlies its effects on neurite growth.

Finally, FGFRs interact with CAMs such as N-CAM, N-cadherin, and L1 via their extracellular domains. In neurons, N-CAM binding to FGFR1 activates the PLC/Ca²⁺ pathway (49, 185, 186). In tumor ß-cells and L cells, Cavallaro et al. (187) show a direct association of FGFR4 and N-CAM. This interaction induces the formation of a multiprotein signaling complex that mediates neurite outgrowth and cell-matrix adhesion (187).

C. Intracellular regulators
1. PTPs.
It is well established that RTK signaling is controlled by PTPs, which act as positive or negative regulators on RTK signaling (reviewed in Refs.188 and 189). The dual-specificity PTP MAPK phosphatase 3 (MKP3, also called Pyst1) antagonizes the MAPK pathway via ERK1/2 inactivation. In vertebrates, its expression is very similar to that of the FGF8 synexpression group, and it is regulated by FGF8 (190, 191). In the developing chick limb MKP3 mediates the antiapoptotic signaling of FGF8 (191), and manipulation of MKP3 activity by short interfering RNA inhibition or overexpression disrupts limb morphology and outgrowth (190, 191). In contrast, the PTP SHP-2 and Xenopus low-molecular weight PTP1 (XLPTP1) act as positive regulators of FGF signaling upstream of Ras during Xenopus embryogenesis (71, 72). Inhibition of XLPTP1 by antisense MOs blocks FGF-induced MAPK activation, leading to a shortened AP axis (72).

2. Sprouty protein.
The feedback inhibitor Sprouty was identified in Drosophila as a negative regulator of FGF signaling during tracheal development (192). Four mammalian Sprouty proteins (Spry1–4) and three Spreds (Sprouty-related EVH1 domain proteins) that share a highly conserved cysteine-rich domain at the carboxy terminus have been identified. This domain is critical to target them to the plasma membrane and to inhibit the MAPK pathway (193). Sprouty2 and -4 are members of the FGF8 synexpression group and are regulated by FGF signaling (106, 194, 195, 196). Sprouty proteins interfere with FGF signaling through several mechanisms, depending on the cellular context and/or stimulation. Different Sprouty proteins exhibit different activities and have different interaction partners, including but not limited to Grb2 (197) and Raf1 (198) (reviewed in Ref.199).

Gain- and loss-of-function experiments confirm the function of Sprouty proteins as intracellular antagonists of FGF signaling. Reduction of mSprouty2 expression during mouse lung development using antisense oligonucleotides established Sprouty as an inhibitor of branching morphogenesis, as in Drosophila (192, 200). Overexpressing Sprouty during chick limb development causes a reduction in limb bud outgrowth consistent with reduced FGF signaling (195). Furthermore, Fürthauer et al. (106) showed that inhibiting Sprouty4 in zebrafish by MO injection elicits phenotypes similar to that obtained after up-regulation of Ffg8. Sprouty4 is required for dorsoventral mesoderm patterning and for head development (106). In Xenopus embryos, XSprouty2 regulates gastrulation movements by a Ca²⁺-dependent pathway (92).

	VI. Concluding Remarks

Top Abstract I. Introduction II. FGFs and FGF... III. FGFR Signal Transduction IV. The Biological Activities... V. Regulation of FGF... VI. Concluding Remarks References

 
Substantial progress has been made in recent years in the understanding of the role of FGF signaling during early vertebrate development. FGFs play an important role in regulating cell fate and specification of all three germ layers. The role of FGF signaling during mesoderm formation and neural induction is now well documented and appears evolutionarily conserved in chordates. A surprising new role is the ability of FGFs to orchestrate gastrulation movements by acting as chemoattractants and repellents. This probably involves direct regulation of the cytoskeleton.

FGF downstream pathways and the components employed are characterized in some detail. A growing number of these components are themselves tightly regulated by FGFs and form an FGF8 synexpression group. The FGF8 synexpression group is an autoregulatory genetic module, conserved from frogs to mice, which is employed, for example, in mesoderm formation and neural patterning during early development. Part of this group are the novel transmembrane regulators Sef and FLRT3, which bind to and modulate FGFRs, but their precise function needs further investigation. It has also become clear that different ligand receptor pairs may preferentially couple to different pathways but how this is regulated is unclear. In the future it will be important to assign the pathways employed by FGFs in different cells and define the determinants for signaling specificity. One emerging class of determinants are HSPGs and the enzymes involved in their synthesis. Two classes of downstream target genes, which mediate FGF signaling are T-box and Hox genes, and this is evolutionary conserved in all vertebrates. Furthermore, there is substantial cross-talk between FGFs with TGF-ß- and Wnt signaling pathways. We are only beginning to understand the mechanisms of these cross-regulations, which are at the heart of the ability of FGFs to act as competence factor, e.g. during mesoderm induction by Nodals. Finally, do FGFs act as morphogens? They have many characteristics of morphogens, including their ability to induce marker genes in a dose-dependent manner. However, the proof that FGFs act directly in a concentration-dependent fashion rather than by relay and the demonstration of a physiological requirement for this is missing.

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank Dr. Sonia Pinho for advice and critical reading of the manuscript.

	Footnotes

 
First Published Online October 26, 2004

Abbreviations: AP, Anterior-posterior; BMP, bone morphogenetic protein; CAM, cell adhesion molecule; EMT, epithelial to mesenchymal transition; FGF, fibroblast growth factor; FGFR, FGF receptor; HS, heparan sulfate; HSPG, heparan sulfate proteoglycan; MO, morpholino oligonucleotide; PI3, phosphatidylinositol-3; PLC, phospholipase C; PTP, protein tyrosine phosphatase; RTK, receptor tyrosine kinase; SOS, Son of sevenless.

	References

Top Abstract I. Introduction II. FGFs and FGF... III. FGFR Signal Transduction IV. The Biological Activities... V. Regulation of FGF... VI. Concluding Remarks References

 

1. Armelin HA 1973 Pituitary extracts and steroid hormones in the control of 3T3 cell growth. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70:2702–2706[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Forbes A, Lehmann R 1999 Cell migration in Drosophila. Curr Opin Genet Dev 9:473–478[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Wilson R, Leptin M 2000 Fibroblast growth factor receptor-dependent morphogenesis of the Drosophila mesoderm. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 355:891–895[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Zelzer E, Shilo BZ 2000 Cell fate choices in Drosophila tracheal morphogenesis. Bioessays 22:219–226[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Montell DJ 1999 The genetics of cell migration in Drosophila melanogaster and Caenorhabditis elegans development. Development 126:3035–3046[Abstract]
6. Borland CZ, Schutzman JL, Stern MJ 2001 Fibroblast growth factor signaling in Caenorhabditis elegans. Bioessays 23:1120–1130[CrossRef][Medline]
7. Martin GR 1998 The roles of FGFs in the early development of vertebrate limbs. Genes Dev 12:1571–1586[Free Full Text]
8. Capdevila J, Izpisua Belmonte JC 2001 Patterning mechanisms controlling vertebrate limb development. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 17:87–132[CrossRef][Medline]
9. Wilkie AO, Patey SJ, Kan SH, van den Ouweland AM, Hamel BC 2002 FGFs, their receptors, and human limb malformations: clinical and molecular correlations. Am J Med Genet 112:266–278[CrossRef][Medline]
10. Ford-Perriss M, Abud H, Murphy M 2001 Fibroblast growth factors in the developing central nervous system. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 28:493–503[CrossRef][Medline]
11. Dono R 2003 Fibroblast growth factors as regulators of central nervous system development and function. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 284:R867–R881
12. Ornitz DM, Marie PJ 2002 FGF signaling pathways in endochondral and intramembranous bone development and human genetic disease. Genes Dev 16:1446–1465[Free Full Text]
13. Dickson C, Spencer-Dene B, Dillon C, Fantl V 2000 Tyrosine kinase signalling in breast cancer: fibroblast growth factors and their receptors. Breast Cancer Res 2:191–196[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Moroni E, Dell’Era P, Rusnati M, Presta M 2002 Fibroblast growth factors and their receptors in hematopoiesis and hematological tumors. J Hematother Stem Cell Res 11:19–32[CrossRef][Medline]
15. Cronauer MV, Schulz WA, Seifert HH, Ackermann R, Burchardt M 2003 Fibroblast growth factors and their receptors in urological cancers: basic research and clinical implications. Eur Urol 43:309–319[CrossRef][Medline]
16. Ornitz DM, Itoh N 2001 Fibroblast growth factors. Genome Biol 2:REVIEWS3005
17. Eriksson AE, Cousens LS, Weaver LH, Matthews BW 1991 Three-dimensional structure of human basic fibroblast growth factor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 88:3441–3445[Abstract/Free Full Text]
18. Zhu X, Komiya H, Chirino A, Faham S, Fox GM, Arakawa T, Hsu BT, Rees DC 1991 Three-dimensional structures of acidic and basic fibroblast growth factors. Science 251:90–93[Abstract/Free Full Text]
19. Plotnikov AN, Hubbard SR, Schlessinger J, Mohammadi M 2000 Crystal structures of two FGF-FGFR complexes reveal the determinants of ligand-receptor specificity. Cell 101:413–424[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Szebenyi G, Fallon JF 1999 Fibroblast growth factors as multifunctional signaling factors. Int Rev Cytol 185:45–106[Medline]
21. Christen B, Slack JM 1999 Spatial response to fibroblast growth factor signalling in Xenopus embryos. Development 126:119–125[Abstract]
22. Green JB, New HV, Smith JC 1992 Responses of embryonic Xenopus cells to activin and FGF are separated by multiple dose thresholds and correspond to distinct axes of the mesoderm. Cell 71:731–739[CrossRef][Medline]
23. Kengaku M, Okamoto H 1995 bFGF as a possible morphogen for the anteroposterior axis of the central nervous system in Xenopus. Development 121:3121–3130[Abstract]
24. Dasen JS, Liu JP, Jessell TM 2003 Motor neuron columnar fate imposed by sequential phases of Hox-c activity. Nature 425:926–933[CrossRef][Medline]
25. Johnson DE, Williams LT 1993 Structural and functional diversity in the FGF receptor multigene family. Adv Cancer Res 60:1–41[Medline]
26. Groth C, Lardelli M 2002 The structure and function of vertebrate fibroblast growth factor receptor 1. Int J Dev Biol 46:393–400[Medline]
27. Ornitz DM, Xu J, Colvin JS, McEwen DG, MacArthur CA, Coulier F, Gao G, Goldfarb M 1996 Receptor specificity of the fibroblast growth factor family. J Biol Chem 271:15292–15297[Abstract/Free Full Text]
28. Xu J, Liu Z, Ornitz DM 2000 Temporal and spatial gradients of Fgf8 and Fgf17 regulate proliferation and differentiation of midline cerebellar structures. Development 127:1833–1843[Abstract]
29. Avivi A, Yayon A, Givol D 1993 A novel form of FGF receptor-3 using an alternative exon in the immunoglobulin domain III. FEBS Lett 330:249–252[CrossRef][Medline]
30. Gilbert E, Del Gatto F, Champion-Arnaud P, Gesnel MC, Breathnach R 1993 Control of BEK and K-SAM splice sites in alternative splicing of the fibroblast growth factor receptor 2 pre-mRNA. Mol Cell Biol 13:5461–5468[Abstract/Free Full Text]
31. Orr-Urtreger A, Bedford MT, Burakova T, Arman E, Zimmer Y, Yayon A, Givol D, Lonai P 1993 Developmental localization of the splicing alternatives of fibroblast growth factor receptor-2 (FGFR2). Dev Biol 158:475–486[CrossRef][Medline]
32. Ornitz DM 2000 FGFs, heparan sulfate and FGFRs: complex interactions essential for development. Bioessays 22:108–112[CrossRef][Medline]
33. Allen BL, Rapraeger AC 2003 Spatial and temporal expression of heparan sulfate in mouse development regulates FGF and FGF receptor assembly. J Cell Biol 163:637–648[Abstract/Free Full Text]
34. McKeehan WL, Wang F, Kan M 1998 The heparan sulfate-fibroblast growth factor family: diversity of structure and function. Prog Nucleic Acid Res Mol Biol 59:135–176[Medline]
35. Schlessinger J 2000 Cell signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell 103:211–225[CrossRef][Medline]
36. Pawson T, Olivier P, Rozakis-Adcock M, McGlade J, Henkemeyer M 1993 Proteins with SH2 and SH3 domains couple receptor tyrosine kinases to intracellular signalling pathways. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 340:279–285[Medline]
37. Forman-Kay JD, Pawson T 1999 Diversity in protein recognition by PTB domains. Curr Opin Struct Biol 9:690–695[Medline]
38. Wang JK, Xu H, Li HC, Goldfarb M 1996 Broadly expressed SNT-like proteins link FGF receptor stimulation to activators of Ras. Oncogene 13:721–729[Medline]
39. Kouhara H, Hadari YR, Spivak-Kroizman T, Schilling J, Bar-Sagi D, Lax I, Schlessinger J 1997 A lipid-anchored Grb2-binding protein that links FGF-receptor activation to the Ras/MAPK signaling pathway. Cell 89:693–702[CrossRef][Medline]
40. Ong SH, Guy GR, Hadari YR, Laks S, Gotoh N, Schlessinger J, Lax I 2000 FRS2 proteins recruit intracellular signaling pathways by binding to diverse targets on fibroblast growth factor and nerve growth factor receptors. Mol Cell Biol 20:979–989[Abstract/Free Full Text]
41. Hadari YR, Gotoh N, Kouhara H, Lax I, Schlessinger J 2001 Critical role for the docking-protein FRS2 in FGF receptor-mediated signal transduction pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:8578–8583[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Kusakabe M, Masuyama N, Hanafusa H, Nishida E 2001 Xenopus FRS2 is involved in early embryogenesis in cooperation with the Src family kinase Laloo. EMBO Rep 2:727–735[CrossRef][Medline]
43. Akagi K, Kyun Park E, Mood K, Daar IO 2002 Docking protein SNT1 is a critical mediator of fibroblast growth factor signaling during Xenopus embryonic development. Dev Dyn 223:216–228[CrossRef][Medline]
44. Hadari YR, Kouhara H, Lax I, Schlessinger J 1998 Binding of Shp2 tyrosine phosphatase to FRS2 is essential for fibroblast growth factor-induced PC12 cell differentiation. Mol Cell Biol 18:3966–3973[Abstract/Free Full Text]
45. Lee Jr JT, McCubrey JA 2002 The Raf/MEK/ERK signal transduction cascade as a target for chemotherapeutic intervention in leukemia. Leukemia 16:486–507[CrossRef][Medline]
46. Mohammadi M, Dionne CA, Li W, Li N, Spivak T, Honegger AM, Jaye M, Schlessinger J 1992 Point mutation in FGF receptor eliminates phosphatidylinositol hydrolysis without affecting mitogenesis. Nature 358:681–684[CrossRef][Medline]
47. Peters KG, Marie J, Wilson E, Ives HE, Escobedo J, Del Rosario M, Mirda D, Williams LT 1992 Point mutation of an FGF receptor abolishes phosphatidylinositol turnover and Ca2+ flux but not mitogenesis. Nature 358:678–681[CrossRef][Medline]
48. Doherty P, Walsh FS 1996 CAM-FGF receptor interactions: a model for axonal growth. Mol Cell Neurosci 8:99–111[CrossRef][Medline]
49. Hall H, Williams EJ, Moore SE, Walsh FS, Prochiantz A, Doherty P 1996 Inhibition of FGF-stimulated phosphatidylinositol hydrolysis and neurite outgrowth by a cell-membrane permeable phosphopeptide. Curr Biol 6:580–587[CrossRef][Medline]
50. Umbhauer M, Penzo-Mendez A, Clavilier L, Boucaut J, Riou J 2000 Signaling specificities of fibroblast growth factor receptors in early Xenopus embryo. J Cell Sci 113:2865–2875[Abstract]
51. Carballada R, Yasuo H, Lemaire P 2001 Phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase acts in parallel to the ERK MAP kinase in the FGF pathway during Xenopus mesoderm induction. Development 128:35–44[Abstract]
52. Slack JM, Darlington BG, Heath JK, Godsave SF 1987 Mesoderm induction in early Xenopus embryos by heparin-binding growth factors. Nature 326:197–200[CrossRef][Medline]
53. Nishida H 2002 Patterning the marginal zone of early ascidian embryos: localized maternal mRNA and inductive interactions. Bioessays 24:613–624[CrossRef][Medline]
54. Amaya E, Musci TJ, Kirschner MW 1991 Expression of a dominant negative mutant of the FGF receptor disrupts mesoderm formation in Xenopus embryos. Cell 66:257–270[CrossRef][Medline]
55. Deng CX, Wynshaw-Boris A, Shen MM, Daugherty C, Ornitz DM, Leder P 1994 Murine FGFR-1 is required for early postimplantation growth and axial organization. Genes Dev 8:3045–3057[Abstract/Free Full Text]
56. Yamaguchi TP, Harpal K, Henkemeyer M, Rossant J 1994 fgfr-1 is required for embryonic growth and mesodermal patterning during mouse gastrulation. Genes Dev 8:3032–3044[Abstract/Free Full Text]
57. Griffin K, Patient R, Holder N 1995 Analysis of FGF function in normal and no tail zebrafish embryos reveals separate mechanisms for formation of the trunk and the tail. Development 121:2983–2994[Abstract]
58. Smith JC, Price BM, Green JB, Weigel D, Herrmann BG 1991 Expression of a Xenopus homolog of Brachyury (T) is an immediate-early response to mesoderm induction. Cell 67:79–87[CrossRef][Medline]
59. Strong CF, Barnett MW, Hartman D, Jones EA, Stott D 2000 Xbra3 induces mesoderm and neural tissue in Xenopus laevis. Dev Biol 222:405–419[CrossRef][Medline]
60. Sun X, Meyers EN, Lewandoski M, Martin GR 1999 Targeted disruption of Fgf8 causes failure of cell migration in the gastrulating mouse embryo. Genes Dev 13:1834–1846[Abstract/Free Full Text]
61. Ciruna B, Rossant J 2001 FGF signaling regulates mesoderm cell fate specification and morphogenetic movement at the primitive streak. Dev Cell 1:37–49[CrossRef][Medline]
62. Griffin KJ, Amacher SL, Kimmel CB, Kimelman D 1998 Molecular identification of spadetail: regulation of zebrafish trunk and tail mesoderm formation by T-box genes. Development 125:3379–3388[Abstract]
63. Zhao J, Cao Y, Zhao C, Postlethwait J, Meng A 2003 An SP1-like transcription factor Spr2 acts downstream of Fgf signaling to mediate mesoderm induction. EMBO J 22:6078–6088[CrossRef][Medline]
64. Isaacs HV 1997 New perspectives on the role of the fibroblast growth factor family in amphibian development. Cell Mol Life Sci 53:350–361[CrossRef][Medline]
65. Kimelman D, Kirschner M 1987 Synergistic induction of mesoderm by FGF and TGF-ß and the identification of an mRNA coding for FGF in the early Xenopus embryo. Cell 51:869–877[CrossRef][Medline]
66. Kimelman D, Abraham JA, Haaparanta T, Palisi TM, Kirschner MW 1988 The presence of fibroblast growth factor in the frog egg: its role as a natural mesoderm inducer. Science 242:1053–1056[Abstract/Free Full Text]
67. Neilson KM, Friesel R 1996 Ligand-independent activation of fibroblast growth factor receptors by point mutations in the extracellular, transmembrane, and kinase domains. J Biol Chem 271:25049–25057[Abstract/Free Full Text]
68. Itoh K, Sokol SY 1994 Heparan sulfate proteoglycans are required for mesoderm formation in Xenopus embryos. Development 120:2703–2711[Abstract/Free Full Text]
69. Gupta RW, Mayer BJ 1998 Dominant-negative mutants of the SH2/SH3 adapters Nck and Grb2 inhibit MAP kinase activation and mesoderm-specific gene induction by eFGF in Xenopus. Oncogene 17:2155–2165[CrossRef][Medline]
70. Weinstein DC, Marden J, Carnevali F, Hemmati-Brivanlou A 1998 FGF-mediated mesoderm induction involves the Src-family kinase Laloo. Nature 394:904–908[CrossRef][Medline]
71. Tang TL, Freeman Jr RM, O’Reilly AM, Neel BG, Sokol SY 1995 The SH2-containing protein-tyrosine phosphatase SH-PTP2 is required upstream of MAP kinase for early Xenopus development. Cell 80:473–483[CrossRef][Medline]
72. Park EK, Warner N, Mood K, Pawson T, Daar IO 2002 Low-molecular-weight protein tyrosine phosphatase is a positive component of the fibroblast growth factor receptor signaling pathway. Mol Cell Biol 22:3404–3414[Abstract/Free Full Text]
73. Whitman M, Melton DA 1992 Involvement of p21ras in Xenopus mesoderm induction. Nature 357:252–254[CrossRef][Medline]
74. MacNicol AM, Muslin AJ, Williams LT 1993 Raf-1 kinase is essential for early Xenopus development and mediates the induction of mesoderm by FGF. Cell 73:571–583[CrossRef][Medline]
75. LaBonne C, Burke B, Whitman M 1995 Role of MAP kinase in mesoderm induction and axial patterning during Xenopus development. Development 121:1475–1486[Abstract]
76. Umbhauer M, Marshall CJ, Mason CS, Old RW, Smith JC 1995 Mesoderm induction in